|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On September 13 2018 06:32 solidbebe wrote:I just read that article and I have no idea where you are getting that idea from. It says that linking with a preview or snippet would fall under this new regulation, not just pastinga link. Moreover, exceptions to copyright like the citation right still apply. This seems a lot more reasonable than what the term 'link tax' implies. I still doubt this will have a net positive outcome though.
I wrote a sentence that previewed the content of the link:
A little bit of information on the so-called link tax, from pirate party parliamentarian Julia Reda.
So it goes clearly beyond a simple hyperlink, this can very well be interpreted as as a snippet. But I am not familiar with a legal term snippet, that is clearly defined.
I believe what the big IT companies will do is that they will just minimize information. They won't buy any licenses and rather take everyone to court that tries to extract money for, what they will see as, simple hyperlinking.
|
On September 13 2018 06:32 solidbebe wrote:I just read that article and I have no idea where you are getting that idea from. It says that linking with a preview or snippet would fall under this new regulation, not just pastinga link. Moreover, exceptions to copyright like the citation right still apply. This seems a lot more reasonable than what the term 'link tax' implies. I still doubt this will have a net positive outcome though.
Either citation rights apply and you don't have to pay the link tax, or citation rights no longer apply. They seem mutually incompatible.
|
On September 13 2018 06:48 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2018 06:32 solidbebe wrote:On September 13 2018 06:19 Big J wrote:A little bit of information on the so-called link tax, from pirate party parliamentarian Julia Reda. https://juliareda.eu/eu-copyright-reform/extra-copyright-for-news-sites/As far as I understand it this very comment you are reading will be illegal under the new legistlation, because I did not acquire the right to publish this snipped from the original publisher, Julia Reda. I just read that article and I have no idea where you are getting that idea from. It says that linking with a preview or snippet would fall under this new regulation, not just pastinga link. Moreover, exceptions to copyright like the citation right still apply. This seems a lot more reasonable than what the term 'link tax' implies. I still doubt this will have a net positive outcome though. I wrote a sentence that previewed the content of the link: A little bit of information on the so-called link tax, from pirate party parliamentarian Julia Reda.So it goes clearly beyond a simple hyperlink, this can very well be interpreted as as a snippet. But I am not familiar with a legal term snippet, that is clearly defined. I believe what the big IT companies will do is that they will just minimize information. They won't buy any licenses and rather take everyone to court that tries to extract money for, what they will see as, simple hyperlinking.
Intentionally ignoring EU regulations hasn’t really worked out for Google recently. I wouldn’t bet on them going that route.
|
On September 13 2018 04:52 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2018 04:30 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On September 13 2018 04:20 Plansix wrote:
That regulation seems to have a lot of pitfalls. But does seem like a step forward to curb the influence of the largest companies like Google and Facebook. The “link tax” allowing publications venue to set the prices for linking their articles through facebook and google. Given that both those “search engines” have news tabs now, publications should be empowered to set the rate for companies to feature their articles, rather than being grateful for the “exposure”.
Of course the tech industry hates it, but Wall Street hates being regulated too. I'm curious how you think that hurts google or facebook. Link tax is going to destroy any competition these giants have, not regulate the big tech companies. These companies are never going to have competition for Amazon, Google and Facebook; they dominate the market so heavily and are actively trying to tamp down on anyone who might compete with them. There is a reason Facebook bought instangram. There is no coming to turn Facebook into Myspace. And if the last couple of years has proven anything, companies the size of Google are not very good at complying with EU regulations. They will violation these new ones. While some smaller, more nimble EU firm will figure out how to comply and provide some of the services Google and Facebook do. And I have no seen anything that would convince me that the "link tax"(which isn't a tax) is going to kill competition. Publications have the ability to charge for a license to link their articles. They don't have to set the same rate for every company.
The other article about content uploading is the real monopoly absurdity so I'd focus less on link tax in that regard, but I'm curious how you reconcile these view points that companies should be paid in more than exposure, but some new company is going to overtake google and facebook because they get a different rate, presumably much cheaper/free...so for the exposure? How does a new content provider even startup when they need to get licensing. You can look at GEMA and see that this mystical German video provider hasn't filled the void that youtube is leaving and that was almost 10 years ago now.
On September 13 2018 08:55 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2018 06:48 Big J wrote:On September 13 2018 06:32 solidbebe wrote:On September 13 2018 06:19 Big J wrote:A little bit of information on the so-called link tax, from pirate party parliamentarian Julia Reda. https://juliareda.eu/eu-copyright-reform/extra-copyright-for-news-sites/As far as I understand it this very comment you are reading will be illegal under the new legistlation, because I did not acquire the right to publish this snipped from the original publisher, Julia Reda. I just read that article and I have no idea where you are getting that idea from. It says that linking with a preview or snippet would fall under this new regulation, not just pastinga link. Moreover, exceptions to copyright like the citation right still apply. This seems a lot more reasonable than what the term 'link tax' implies. I still doubt this will have a net positive outcome though. I wrote a sentence that previewed the content of the link: A little bit of information on the so-called link tax, from pirate party parliamentarian Julia Reda.So it goes clearly beyond a simple hyperlink, this can very well be interpreted as as a snippet. But I am not familiar with a legal term snippet, that is clearly defined. I believe what the big IT companies will do is that they will just minimize information. They won't buy any licenses and rather take everyone to court that tries to extract money for, what they will see as, simple hyperlinking. Intentionally ignoring EU regulations hasn’t really worked out for Google recently. I wouldn’t bet on them going that route.
Link taxes were already implemented in Germany and Spain and Google told them give us free licensing or we aren't going to host your content anymore.
|
On September 13 2018 05:23 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2018 04:42 kollin wrote:On September 12 2018 22:22 zlefin wrote:On September 12 2018 21:50 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I think it's very different in a significant way; people feel that 'salary' is an indicator of value/importance to a company, and with how people spend half their awake weekday hours on work, how important they are as people. Giving a CEO 600 times the salary of an entry level worker makes the CEO 600 times more important/valuable than the worker, and then taxing that CEO higher than the entry level worker and redistributing some of the wages makes it seem like the entry level worker isn't even capable of making ends meet, while the CEO is so generous that him accepting the high taxation level is his way of helping out hundreds of people. But when people make enough money from just salaries, they get the feeling that they are valuable workers, and valuable people, who also make their contributions to society.
I think this (the lack of what is somewhat reminiscent of client-patron relationships) is a very important explanation for norwegian/scandinavian societies having much higher degrees of social cohesion and societal trust than you find in mostly all other western societies. We don't have the same degree of inherent distrust/dislike of the ruling classes as you find most other places - because the ruling classes are much less exploitative. so, to be clear, you agree that it is a form of wealth redistribution, that due to its complexity, causes fewer social problems in practice because it's a less transparent way of redistributing the wealth that meshes better with human psychology? Just trying to be clear on your answer to my prior query. as while your response is interesting and nuanced, it didn't include a clear, specific answer to my question. Minimum wage upholds the social contract between owner and worker in lieu of powerful collective bargaining via unions. Taxation is corrective redistributive justice. Both minimum wage and redistributive taxation pursue economic and social justice, but minimum wage isn't redistributive because the idea that redistribution is an attempt to correct what would happen without that law isn't entirely correct. They are both means, above all, of pursuing distributive justice, but minimum wage is grounded far more securely in the idea of the social contract than progressive taxation is. you seem to be using the words in a different meaning/sense than I, or Drone (as far as I can tell), are using them, which makes it less clear what exact point you're trying to make. It's somewhat clear, but not completely; it looks like you're insisting that an alternate definition is more appropriate.
Minimum wage is not a form of wealth redistribution
|
On September 13 2018 09:36 kollin wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2018 05:23 zlefin wrote:On September 13 2018 04:42 kollin wrote:On September 12 2018 22:22 zlefin wrote:On September 12 2018 21:50 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I think it's very different in a significant way; people feel that 'salary' is an indicator of value/importance to a company, and with how people spend half their awake weekday hours on work, how important they are as people. Giving a CEO 600 times the salary of an entry level worker makes the CEO 600 times more important/valuable than the worker, and then taxing that CEO higher than the entry level worker and redistributing some of the wages makes it seem like the entry level worker isn't even capable of making ends meet, while the CEO is so generous that him accepting the high taxation level is his way of helping out hundreds of people. But when people make enough money from just salaries, they get the feeling that they are valuable workers, and valuable people, who also make their contributions to society.
I think this (the lack of what is somewhat reminiscent of client-patron relationships) is a very important explanation for norwegian/scandinavian societies having much higher degrees of social cohesion and societal trust than you find in mostly all other western societies. We don't have the same degree of inherent distrust/dislike of the ruling classes as you find most other places - because the ruling classes are much less exploitative. so, to be clear, you agree that it is a form of wealth redistribution, that due to its complexity, causes fewer social problems in practice because it's a less transparent way of redistributing the wealth that meshes better with human psychology? Just trying to be clear on your answer to my prior query. as while your response is interesting and nuanced, it didn't include a clear, specific answer to my question. Minimum wage upholds the social contract between owner and worker in lieu of powerful collective bargaining via unions. Taxation is corrective redistributive justice. Both minimum wage and redistributive taxation pursue economic and social justice, but minimum wage isn't redistributive because the idea that redistribution is an attempt to correct what would happen without that law isn't entirely correct. They are both means, above all, of pursuing distributive justice, but minimum wage is grounded far more securely in the idea of the social contract than progressive taxation is. you seem to be using the words in a different meaning/sense than I, or Drone (as far as I can tell), are using them, which makes it less clear what exact point you're trying to make. It's somewhat clear, but not completely; it looks like you're insisting that an alternate definition is more appropriate. Minimum wage is not a form of wealth redistribution
your opinion is noted.
|
On September 13 2018 06:48 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2018 06:32 solidbebe wrote:On September 13 2018 06:19 Big J wrote:A little bit of information on the so-called link tax, from pirate party parliamentarian Julia Reda. https://juliareda.eu/eu-copyright-reform/extra-copyright-for-news-sites/As far as I understand it this very comment you are reading will be illegal under the new legistlation, because I did not acquire the right to publish this snipped from the original publisher, Julia Reda. I just read that article and I have no idea where you are getting that idea from. It says that linking with a preview or snippet would fall under this new regulation, not just pastinga link. Moreover, exceptions to copyright like the citation right still apply. This seems a lot more reasonable than what the term 'link tax' implies. I still doubt this will have a net positive outcome though. I wrote a sentence that previewed the content of the link: A little bit of information on the so-called link tax, from pirate party parliamentarian Julia Reda.So it goes clearly beyond a simple hyperlink, this can very well be interpreted as as a snippet. But I am not familiar with a legal term snippet, that is clearly defined. I believe what the big IT companies will do is that they will just minimize information. They won't buy any licenses and rather take everyone to court that tries to extract money for, what they will see as, simple hyperlinking.
Didn't look at it in depth, but I only need to see the votes of the conservatives lol
|
The situation reminds me of that (former short-time Greece finance minister of the Syriza coalition) Yanis Varoufakis story, where he had his first Eurogroup meeting with the German finance minister Schäuble and was told that: "Elections must not change economic policies of a country!" and he answered: "That is great news for the Chinese communist party, they believe that too!"
(It is a story told by Varoufakis, make of it what you want)
We are already in a European McCarthy era and we are heading deeper with full speed.
|
On September 13 2018 09:22 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2018 08:55 Plansix wrote:On September 13 2018 06:48 Big J wrote:On September 13 2018 06:32 solidbebe wrote:On September 13 2018 06:19 Big J wrote:A little bit of information on the so-called link tax, from pirate party parliamentarian Julia Reda. https://juliareda.eu/eu-copyright-reform/extra-copyright-for-news-sites/As far as I understand it this very comment you are reading will be illegal under the new legistlation, because I did not acquire the right to publish this snipped from the original publisher, Julia Reda. I just read that article and I have no idea where you are getting that idea from. It says that linking with a preview or snippet would fall under this new regulation, not just pastinga link. Moreover, exceptions to copyright like the citation right still apply. This seems a lot more reasonable than what the term 'link tax' implies. I still doubt this will have a net positive outcome though. I wrote a sentence that previewed the content of the link: A little bit of information on the so-called link tax, from pirate party parliamentarian Julia Reda.So it goes clearly beyond a simple hyperlink, this can very well be interpreted as as a snippet. But I am not familiar with a legal term snippet, that is clearly defined. I believe what the big IT companies will do is that they will just minimize information. They won't buy any licenses and rather take everyone to court that tries to extract money for, what they will see as, simple hyperlinking. Intentionally ignoring EU regulations hasn’t really worked out for Google recently. I wouldn’t bet on them going that route. Link taxes were already implemented in Germany and Spain and Google told them give us free licensing or we aren't going to host your content anymore.
And this is the crux of the issue. This does not solve the problem in any way. Google has too much power for this to work. Google doesn't need any single of the publishers (Though it does need some in this regard). So if publishers don't form a union and demand payment as a whole, Google is just gonna tell any single publisher "Free links or no links". And at least in Germany, none have chosen "no links" so far. Because there is one thing that is worse than google stealing your content for exposure. Not being on google.
|
On September 13 2018 19:43 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2018 09:22 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On September 13 2018 08:55 Plansix wrote:On September 13 2018 06:48 Big J wrote:On September 13 2018 06:32 solidbebe wrote:On September 13 2018 06:19 Big J wrote:A little bit of information on the so-called link tax, from pirate party parliamentarian Julia Reda. https://juliareda.eu/eu-copyright-reform/extra-copyright-for-news-sites/As far as I understand it this very comment you are reading will be illegal under the new legistlation, because I did not acquire the right to publish this snipped from the original publisher, Julia Reda. I just read that article and I have no idea where you are getting that idea from. It says that linking with a preview or snippet would fall under this new regulation, not just pastinga link. Moreover, exceptions to copyright like the citation right still apply. This seems a lot more reasonable than what the term 'link tax' implies. I still doubt this will have a net positive outcome though. I wrote a sentence that previewed the content of the link: A little bit of information on the so-called link tax, from pirate party parliamentarian Julia Reda.So it goes clearly beyond a simple hyperlink, this can very well be interpreted as as a snippet. But I am not familiar with a legal term snippet, that is clearly defined. I believe what the big IT companies will do is that they will just minimize information. They won't buy any licenses and rather take everyone to court that tries to extract money for, what they will see as, simple hyperlinking. Intentionally ignoring EU regulations hasn’t really worked out for Google recently. I wouldn’t bet on them going that route. Link taxes were already implemented in Germany and Spain and Google told them give us free licensing or we aren't going to host your content anymore. And this is the crux of the issue. This does not solve the problem in any way. Google has too much power for this to work. Google doesn't need any single of the publishers (Though it does need some in this regard). So if publishers don't form a union and demand payment as a whole, Google is just gonna tell any single publisher "Free links or no links". And at least in Germany, none have chosen "no links" so far. Because there is one thing that is worse than google stealing your content for exposure. Not being on google.
You mean that a big company may be able to abuse their market position for their own good? Rich people that get richer on the sole base of already being rich?
You dirty communist!
|
A Swedish journalist asked Axel Voss, the main figure behind the copyright directive, about the fact that under that new directive any foto or video from a sports event (like a selfie) will be a copyright infringement.
The answer: "We are surprised that this is part of the text, we will have to discuss this."
Once again a conservative puppet of rich families has no clue what they are proposing in parliament.
|
On September 13 2018 04:20 Plansix wrote:
That regulation seems to have a lot of pitfalls. But does seem like a step forward to curb the influence of the largest companies like Google and Facebook. The “link tax” allowing publications venue to set the prices for linking their articles through facebook and google. Given that both those “search engines” have news tabs now, publications should be empowered to set the rate for companies to feature their articles, rather than being grateful for the “exposure”.
Of course the tech industry hates it, but Wall Street hates being regulated too.
AFAIK Germany and Spain tried implementing such regulations. In Germany Google ended up getting free licences from the media while in Spain the publishers did not cave in and saw significant drops in exposure after they were omitted by Google. (At least according to what I recently read on Reddit.)
edit: Grammar.
|
On September 13 2018 22:17 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2018 04:20 Plansix wrote:
That regulation seems to have a lot of pitfalls. But does seem like a step forward to curb the influence of the largest companies like Google and Facebook. The “link tax” allowing publications venue to set the prices for linking their articles through facebook and google. Given that both those “search engines” have news tabs now, publications should be empowered to set the rate for companies to feature their articles, rather than being grateful for the “exposure”.
Of course the tech industry hates it, but Wall Street hates being regulated too. AFAIK Germany and Spain tried implementing such regulations. In Germany Google ended up getting a free licences by the media while in Spain the publishers did not cave in and saw significant drops in exposure after they were omitted by Google. (At least according to what I recently read on Reddit.)
That is to be expected. Until they can form a unified front against Google and its dominance, Google is going to be able to push them around. But right now they are at the under the thumb of Google, a company which is being pressured to favor conservative media by right wing actors within the US. It isn’t healthy for the internet for companies like Google to have this much dominance.
The upload loading regulations are interesting and seem to be targeted at companies that use software to “moderate” what is uploaded for viewing(aka, Youtube, reddit and other content “hosts”). But I’m not encouraged by the readings some of the readings that selfies at sporting events could be caught up in that system. But that is something that could be ironed out over time. And of course, it is easily avoided by just moderating what is push out on the service, which is exactly what reddit/youtube/facebook don’t want to do because they can’t blame a software error if humans are involved.
|
@TheDwf: Austrian media reported that Macron is now focusing on programs for poorer people. Anything good in there like education etc. or just a bunch of goodies that transfers money from the working people to the non-working people until all the working people vote for right-wingers against the poor?
|
On September 13 2018 22:29 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2018 22:17 maybenexttime wrote:On September 13 2018 04:20 Plansix wrote:
That regulation seems to have a lot of pitfalls. But does seem like a step forward to curb the influence of the largest companies like Google and Facebook. The “link tax” allowing publications venue to set the prices for linking their articles through facebook and google. Given that both those “search engines” have news tabs now, publications should be empowered to set the rate for companies to feature their articles, rather than being grateful for the “exposure”.
Of course the tech industry hates it, but Wall Street hates being regulated too. AFAIK Germany and Spain tried implementing such regulations. In Germany Google ended up getting a free licences by the media while in Spain the publishers did not cave in and saw significant drops in exposure after they were omitted by Google. (At least according to what I recently read on Reddit.) That is to be expected. Until they can form a unified front against Google and its dominance, Google is going to be able to push them around. But right now they are at the under the thumb of Google, a company which is being pressured to favor conservative media by right wing actors within the US. It isn’t healthy for the internet for companies like Google to have this much dominance. The upload loading regulations are interesting and seem to be targeted at companies that use software to “moderate” what is uploaded for viewing(aka, Youtube, reddit and other content “hosts”). But I’m not encouraged by the readings some of the readings that selfies at sporting events could be caught up in that system. But that is something that could be ironed out over time. And of course, it is easily avoided by just moderating what is push out on the service, which is exactly what reddit/youtube/facebook don’t want to do because they can’t blame a software error if humans are involved.
I'll rather take Google over Rupert Murdoch and Axel Springer. Not that Google owning such a large share of the pie is ideal but this is just a lobbying effort by publishers who are trying to rent seek
|
Google isn't the only search engine. If the content providers stick with their guns and possibly start negotiating with a different search engine then what choice does Google have?
Google needs the content creators more then the other way around I think, Google needs the data (what websites people search and visit,what adds they click and so on) so that they can sell it to advertisers,the content creators need to have their content show up on search engines but any search engine could do in theory. Google is the dominant one but that is mostly based on the brand,not so much on the product itself. Once a few major content creators stop showing up on google people will probably switch to a different search engine rather quickly.
While I don't support the link tax in any way, and even think it can be a threat to the value of the internet as a whole,i do think the publishers have a point. Yes they rent seek but in the end its their content. Google has build its whole business around the content of other people,it is not completely unfair if they would want something in return.
|
The internet has created extreme exposure beyond anything that the artificial property rights for publishers and artists were ever intended for. If you have a thing that you can replicate at virtually no cost at all, then the logicial conclusion is that you cannot demand a high price for it. That is the case with almost all music and newspapers at the moment.
The conservative parties are once again perverting the idea of property rights from something that is necessary to create liberal systems in a situation of scarce resources, to something that is a god-given right of an owner himself.
With the sole purpose that they believe the owners should get a higher reward than the market is ready to pay them at the moment.
If the problem is Google being too dominant for a market system, then that is a question of breaking up Google, not of fucking up the law.
|
I’ve said it before, but I dislike the framing that the internet has agency or the ability to create anything. The internet is a man made collection of technology, not a force of nature. The nature of the internet is designed, not organic. Companies pick and choose which aspects of the internet benefit them and promote those aspects, including the ones that undermine the creative rights of writers, news publications and traditional media. The internet is as artificial as the concept of property rights.
And as for breaking up Google, good luck with that over in the EU because we are not doing it here in the US in the next decade or more. Google is going to dominate US media while also creating censorship tools for China.
|
On September 18 2018 21:57 Plansix wrote:
I’ve said it before, but I dislike the framing that the internet has agency or the ability to create anything. The internet is a man made collection of technology, not a force of nature. The nature of the internet is designed, not organic.
That is a good way to look at anything. We should look at every law based on such a material approach and argue whether a law contributes to personal freedom (=prevention of coercion) or whether it doesn't.
On September 18 2018 21:57 Plansix wrote:
Companies pick and choose which aspects of the internet benefit them and promote those aspects, including the ones that undermine the creative rights of writers, news publications and traditional media. The internet is as artificial as the concept of property rights.
Maybe it is simply time to let those "creative rights" go or acknowledge, that they aren't worth a lot anymore?
We have hundreds of years of music and an extremely stacked international competition for it, with worldwide distribution for almost no money. It is not a good business to get into, if you just want to record and sell a few songs and make money with it, plain as that.
What the radical conservatives do instead is that they create copyrights and property rights out of thin air so that more and more money can be extracted, although the costs for creation and distribution are going down.
|
On September 18 2018 23:04 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2018 21:57 Plansix wrote:
I’ve said it before, but I dislike the framing that the internet has agency or the ability to create anything. The internet is a man made collection of technology, not a force of nature. The nature of the internet is designed, not organic. That is a good way to look at anything. We should look at every law based on such a material approach and argue whether a law contributes to personal freedom (=prevention of coercion) or whether it doesn't. Show nested quote +On September 18 2018 21:57 Plansix wrote:
Companies pick and choose which aspects of the internet benefit them and promote those aspects, including the ones that undermine the creative rights of writers, news publications and traditional media. The internet is as artificial as the concept of property rights. Maybe it is simply time to let those "creative rights" go or acknowledge, that they aren't worth a lot anymore? We have hundreds of years of music and an extremely stacked international competition for it, with worldwide distribution for almost no money. It is not a good business to get into, if you just want to record and sell a few songs and make money with it, plain as that. What the radical conservatives do instead is that they create copyrights and property rights out of thin air so that more and more money can be extracted, although the costs for creation and distribution are going down.
I disagree. There is no need to destroy "arts" as a profession. Do I think copyright law needs to be reformed? Absolutely. But abolishing it is too drastic. Musicians deserve some form of royalty for their work in creating the content. It's clearly not the distribution that is hard, but the original production, and thus the original producer should be remunerated for that effort. Unless you feel "being entertained" is not a service you should pay for.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
